ML053480052

Enclosure - Review Stakeholder Comments/Observations from Annual Decommissioning Briefing - 200500260

ML053480052
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee, Trojan
Issue date:	12/29/2005
From:	Bill Dean NRC/EDO/AO
To:	David Brown, Castleman P, Hatchett G, Olivier J, Tadesse R, Thoma J NRC/OCM
Orlando D, NMSS/DWM, 301-415-6749
Shared Package
ML053630301	List: ML053480052 ML053630302
References
Download: ML053480052 (14)

Text

RESPONSE TO SRM ON ANNUAL DECOMMISSIONING BRIEFINGIn the Staff Requirements Memorandum resulting from the staff's annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program(M051018), the Commission directed the staff to:1.Evaluate the lessons learned from the decommissioning of Maine Yankee and Trojan to look for ways to improve stakeholderinteractions in NRC's decommissioning activities.; and2.Review the recommendations and observations of the stakeholders and informally provide its analysis, withrecommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission.

1.Lessons Learned from Maine Yankee and Trojan Decommissioning:The staff has reviewed the Trojan and Maine Yankee decommissioning process to determine if there are any lessons to be learned,including ways to improve stakeholder interactions in NRC's decommissioning activities. Lessons learned from the Maine Yankeeand Trojan decommissioning process are being included in the lessons learned section of the enhanced decommissioning webpage. Lessons learned from the decommissioning of the Trojan and Maine Yankee facilities include the benefits of early interaction andagreement on future decommissioning activities, agreement on the format and content of decommissioning documents and the needfor good quality control programs. Staff is also working with the nuclear industry and other stakeholders to compile and makeavailable lessons learned for all aspects of decommissioning.

2.Summary of Stakeholder Issues and Comments from the Annual Decommissioning Program Briefing October 18, 2005:The staff's analysis of the stakeholder recommendations and observations from the briefing, including staff actions orrecommendations regarding each of the recommendations and observations is in the table below.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION1. "Operating plan inspection to reduce futuredecommissioning problems in legacy sites. It's going to save - pay large benefits in thefuture." HAASStaff analyzed this issue in SECY-03-0069 andthe Commission approved the staff'srecommendation for developing inspectionprocedures for operating facilities to addressissues that could complicate decommissioning. This activity is being managed under theIntegrated Decommissioning ImprovementPlan, and includes developing guidance forinspections and enforcement and for arulemaking to prevent "future legacy sites."None - staff is already implementing thestakeholder's recommendation.2. "...continuing to improve licensetermination plan approval process. ...target ofunder 12 months is probably in order." HAASStaff included a 12 month DecommissioningPlan (DP) and License Termination Plan (LTP)review target in its FY 2005 Operating Plan. This metric is included in the FY 2006 Op Plan and will be included in all future Op plans. Inaddition, the staff has established aPerformance measure in the FY 2007 "BlueBook" of reducing the review time for LTPs by30% over the next 3 years.None - staff is already implementing thestakeholder's recommendation.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION 1During FY 2005, the first Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP) was prepared for the Decommissioning Program. TheIDIP documented improvements completed in FY 2004 and plans for additional improvements during FY 2005-FY 2007. The IDIP integratedthree sets of improvements: regulatory improvements to resolve issues related to implementing 10 CFR 20 Subpart E; program managementimprovements resulting from the recommendations in the staff's 2003 Decommissioning Program Evaluation; and, improvements directed by theCommission after the October 2004 annual briefing on the status of the Decommissioning Program. The plan includes a description of eachimprovement and associated milestones, schedules, and staff assignments. The Operating Plan is used to track the key milestones andschedules and is periodically revised using an approach that consists of a repeating cycle of four steps: 1) assess program; 2) planimprovements; 3) conduct improvements; and 4) measure and reassess program. A revision is planned for early in FY 2006 to update plans forwork during FY 2006 and FY 2007. The IDIP will also be revised in FY 2007 to reflect the results of the FY 2006 OMB PART review. The firststep for assessing the program involves identifying lessons learned and staff and stakeholder recommendations for improving the program.3. "I think it's important to continue to improvethe final site survey process." HAASStaff has taken several initiatives to improve theapproach to the final site survey process. Thestaff now relies on side-by-side sampling duringthe licensee's final surveys and reviews oflicensee's quality assurance programs in lieu ofperforming confirmatory surveys at thecompletion of the decommissioning. (Thisissue was discussed as a "lesson learned" inRegulatory Issues Summary (RIS) 2002-02 andthe "Consolidated NMSS DecommissioningGuidance" NUREG-1757 Volume 2, and hasbeen included as guidance in NUREG-1757,Supplement 1.) The staff has established aprocess whereby the Oak Ridge Institute forScience and Education can, on an emergencybasis, perform confirmatory sampling with only72 hours notice, instead of the usual 2-4 weektimeframe. Finally, the staff has used Stateinspectors to supplement the NRC inspectorsconducting side-by-side sampling.Staff will continue to seek opportunities toimprove the final site survey process. Staff isidentifying "lessons learned" from all majorlicensing actions, including licenseterminations, and has a process, theIntegrated Decommissioning ImprovementPlan (IDIP 1), for reviewing and developingimprovement actions from lessons learned.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION4. "...continue to improve the communicationwith local stakeholders." HAASStaff has been working on improvingcommunications with all stakeholders for thepast several years. Staff developed andmaintains site- and issue- specificcommunications plans for each materials andpower reactor site. These plans provide toolsthat the staff uses to plan public outreachactivities for each site. In 2005, the staffrevised the format of the annualDecommissioning Program Annual report and will publish it as a NUREG document in evenyears. Staff completed several enhancementsto the Decommissioning Website includingproviding information on the decommissioningprocess for materials and reactor sites, links tosite specific information and documents,regulations, guidance, and other programdocuments. Staff also developed adecommissioning brochure for distribution atpublic meetings.Staff will continue to seek opportunities toimprove stakeholder communications. Staffis identifying "lessons learned" from all majorlicensing actions and will incorporateimprovements using the IDIP process.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION5. "Capture lesson learned." HAASIn 2005, staff initiated an effort to identify,record and incorporate lessons learned fromongoing decommissioning activities into currentand future decommissioning projects and intothe designs for new facilities. This conti nueswork that the staff completed in 2002 and 2003when the staff published decommissioninglessons learned in RIS 2002-02 and NUREG-1757. Staff has established liaisons withindustry groups such as the Nuclear EnergyInstitute, Electric power Research Institute andthe Fuel Cycle Facility Forum and theAgreement States to coordinate and sharedecommissioning lessons learned. In April2005, the staff held a workshop which focusedon exchanging views on decommissioninglessons learned with NRC, industry andAgreement States.Staff will continue to seek to capture, recordand incorporate lessons learned into ongoingdecommissioning activities and to ensurethat lessons learned are incorporated into thedesigns of future facilities, includingopportunities to improve the final site surveyprocess. The staff is developing a rule toprevent future legacy sites that will incl ude arequirement to consider decommissioning inthe design of new facilities. The staff hasbegun listing lessons learned on theenhanced decommissioning webpage andhas been, and will continue to, meet withindustry and other groups to identify, recordand incorporate lessons learned into thedecommissioning process. The IDIP is thevehicle that the staff will use to review anddevelop improvements from these lessonslearned.6. "Radwaste disposal options, your recentand definite deferral of rulemaking relative tolow-level radioactive waste is a bit of adisappointment." HAASThe comments pertain to the recently deferredrulemaking on clearance.None - staff does not intend to act on thisobservation as the Commission hasinstructed the staff to defer work on thisactivity.7. "And lastly, we can never truly bedecommissioned until we can send our spentfuel offsite, spent fuel and greater than ClassC waste disposal. It should be a huge priorityfor us, and I know that it is." HAASThis comment pertains to the high-level wasterepository and is outside of the scope of thedecommissioning program.None - This comment is outside of the scopeof the decommissioning program.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION8. "The first lesson has to do with flexibilityand interpretation of regulation and regulatoryguidance. Overly conservative interpretationof regulations that trigger the licensetermination rule has virtually stalled thedecommissioning of one of our sites, which iscurrently being decommissioned under theSDMP program." LUXThis comment pertains to a site-specific issueabout the grandfathering provisions of 10 CFR20, Subpart E. Specifically, it was unclear if afacility that was grandfathered under Subpart Ethat later requested a modification to itscleanup approach would have to re-submit aDP and be subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 20.1402. NRC OGC staff worked with thelicensee's counsel and determined that, in thiscase, the site could continue to bedecommissioned as a grandfathered site.None with respect to the site-specific issueraised by the stakeholder, as the issue hasbeen resolved.9. "Another lesson we learned is that we needto characterize our sites with thedecommissioning process in mind." LUXThis comment pertains more to actions by thelicensee, not the NRC staff. However,evaluation of the lesson learned will be incl udedin the IDIP.Staff will include this lesson learned in thelessons learned website and consider how toincorporate it into decommissioning guidancein accordance with the IDIP process.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION10. "And when NRC staff reviewsdecommissioning plans at a very low level ofdetail, not only does it add a lot of time to theprocess, but it reduces the flexibility indecommissioning." LUXEarly in the Decommissioning Program, staffrecognized that the type and level of detailnecessary to review and approve a DP or LTPwould vary from site to site, based on thepotential risks associated with the site. Staffhas established a risk-informed approach to thedevelopment of DPs and LTPs in which thestaff and licensees meet prior to and during thedevelopment of the DP or LTP in order toensure that only the information necessary toensure that the decommissioning can beconducted safely and with minimal adverseimpacts on the environment and localcommunities is included in the DP or LTP. Inaddition, it relies on frequent meetings withlicensees during the review of the DP or LTP toresolve technical or policy issues withoutrequesting information via a Request forAdditional Information. The approach helpsfocus the appropriate level of detail in the DP.Staff will continue to use the risk-informedprocess to ensure that only information thatis necessary is included in DPs or LTPs. Staff will continue to review the informationpresented in the DP or LTP at a level ofdetail that ensures that the staff canconclude that the proposed activities can beconducted in a manner that is protective ofthe public health and safety and theenvironment.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION11. "...the use of reasonable exposurescenarios is critical." LUXThis issue has been a topic of numerousdiscussions within the decommissioningcommunity for the past several years. Thisissue was analyzed in SECY-03-0069 and theCommission approved the staff'srecommendations to use reasonablyforeseeable land use in lieu of moreconservative (usually farming) scenarios. Staffhas developed an approach to reviewing theproposed future land use which is included inthe recently published (for comment)supplement to NUREG-1757, "ConsolidatedNMSS Decommissioning Guidance". Thisapproach evaluates the potential uses of theland for decades up to 100 years (in lieu of1000 years), includes recommendations bylocal land use planning authorities andevaluates other, reasonable land use scenariosin order to allow the staff to make an informeddecision on the appropriateness of theproposed land use. Using this approach, thestaff has been successfully approving DPs andLTPs with reasonably foreseeable land usescenarios for the past few years and willcontinue to use this approach in the future.Staff will continue to implement theCommission's approved policy for licensees'use of reasonably foreseeable land usesinstead of the most conservative potentialland use and will use its establishedmethodology to review and approve DPs andLTPs that use this approach.12. "...DCGL's should be developed for allmedia and should consider intermediarelationships." LUXGuidance addressing this observation has beenincluded in all decommissioning guidancedeveloped by the staff since the inception of thedecommissioning program.None - staff has already included thisrequirement in decommissioning guidance and will continue to require it to beaddressed in DPs and LTPs.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION13. "Regarding the NRC/EPA MOU process,the memorandum of understanding, I just beg,plead and urge the NRC to involve licenseesin that process." LUXThe staff has discussed this issue withrepresentative of the Fuel Cycle Facility Forumand others to gain an understanding of theirconcerns. While the staff agrees that somelicensees may be able to provide valuableinformation about their sites, the staff'sresponsibilities under the MOU cannot beinfluenced by licensee's concerns orpreferences regarding the manner in which theNRC staff carries out its responsibilities underthe MOU, because it remains the NRC staff'sresponsibility to make the notifications inaccordance with the processes that the NRCand EPA staffs have established under theMOU.As appropriate, and on a case-by-case basisthe staff will involve licensees in thediscussions with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency on the staff's actionsunder the MOU. Draft letters to EPA will beshared with licensees for factual review.14. "NRC staff should continue to attend FuelCycle Facility Forum meetings." LUXStaff routinely attends meeting sponsored byindustry groups, societal organizations andpublic interest groups. Attendance at thesemeetings is one of the activities tracked in thestaff Operating Plan and supports the Safetyand Openness Goals in the Strategic Plan.Staff will continue to participate in the FCFFmeeting and continue to participate in allindustry meetings, as appropriate.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION15. "Also, some licensees have had portionsof their sites released but were later told thatthe released area would have to be addressedagain prior to license termination. Andobviously, this causes some concernsregarding finality." LUXThis observation stems from some licensees'confusion regarding the scope of the dosemodeling that must be performed todemonstrate that a site meets the criteria in 10CFR 20, Subpart E. During the operationalphase of the facility, portions of the facility maybe cleaned up and released as a "partial siterelease" (PSR). Potential doses from residualradioactive material on these PSRs mustcomply with 10 CFR Subpart E. When thefacility enters decommissioning at the end ofthe operational phase of the facility, thepotential doses from all previous PSRs must beincluded in the dose assessments for thelicense termination as the PSRs and the currentsite constitute the "site" as envisioned in theregulations. If licensees were allowed toexclude PSRs from the final site dose estimatesit could lead to a situation whereby multiple,contiguous PSRs, each at the 10 CFR SubpartE level, would in the aggregate, result in dosesthat exceed NRC's criteria.Staff will continue to stress the need toconsider the contributions from all sources ofradioactivity at sites, including PSRs, duringthe pre-DP/LTP meetings held withlicensees.16. "Finally, there is a lot of confusion amonglicensees regarding the disposition of licensedmaterial at disposal facilities that are regulatedby environmental regulatory agencies at non-licensed facilities, and I feel that should becleared up." LUXStaff is evaluating the disposal of material atnon-licensed sites pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002and is developing guidance to allow the staffand licensees to use this disposal approachmore effectively.Staff will incorporate any guidance resultingfrom its analysis into decommissioningguidance and as appropriate will informlicensees of this guidance when it has beendeveloped17. "A comprehensive characterization wouldhave made decommissioning more effectiveand efficient." MAIERSSee #9, above.See #9, above.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION18. "Another lesson is strict application of RegGuide 1.86 and NUREG-5849 criteria wouldrequire most radiological contaminatedbuildings to be demolished." MAIERSNRC staff typically allows the use of the RegGuide 1.86 values as cleanup values and thesurvey approaches discussed in NUREG-5849only for those sites that have beengrandfathered under 10 CFR 20 Subpart E. Any sites not addressed under thegrandfathering provisions of 10 CFR 20Subpart E would be required to meet the 25mrem/year, all pathways requirements in Part20. In addition, the staff no longer endorsesthe survey approaches in NUREG-5849 andinstead relies on the approaches discussed inthe Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and SiteInvestigation Manual (MARSSIM).None.19. "In process inspections and on-goinginteractions between the licensee andregulator were critical for the timely completionof this project." MAIERSSee #3 and #12, above.See #3 and #12, above.20. " I think that these community advisorypanels are important parts of the process." HUDSONStaff agrees that licensees should activelyinteract with and seek input from their localstakeholders. As discussed in #4 above, thestaff has a process in place to ensure that localstakeholders are aware of the NRC staffactions as well as their opportunities toparticipate in the process. In NUREG-1757,and in draft Supplement 1 to this NUREG, thestaff provides detailed information aboutinteracting with, and obtaining public input tothe decommissioning project for restricted usesites that may be useful to other sites.Staff will continue to stress the need forlicensees to interact with local stakeholdersand continue to provide stakeholders with theopportunity to participate in thedecommissioning process as described inthe NRC regulations and staff guidance.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION21. "Participating in these meetings wassometimes frustrating because I know underthe regulatory process that we weren't gettingall the information all the time." HUDSONAs appropriate, staff has worked with licenseesand stakeholders to ensure that access to siteinformation is available to any interestedindividuals. Staff makes all decommissioningdocumentation publicly available, unless thelicensee can demonstrate that it should bewithheld under the NRC's regulations. However, the staff has limited capacity tocompel a licensee to provide information toothers.Staff will continue to provide all publiclyavailable information in accordance withNRC's regulations and will continue to workwith licensees and stakeholders to facilitateproviding information to any interestedindividual.22. "I really do think that advisory panelsneed some level to be institutionalized, butthey need also to be flexible so that they cantruly represent the public interest at individualsites." HUDSONThe staff does not believe that it is appropriateto place specific requirements on how a site-specific advisory board (SSAB) is set up ormanaged. This should be controlled by thelicensee and the local stakeholders, withguidance on approaches that have beensuccessful being provided by NRC. The staffbelieves that an SSAB is one appropriatemechanism for local stakeholder involvement,but also recognizes that this may not beappropriate in all situations. This wasdiscussed in the Statements of Considerationfor 10 CFR 20, Subpart E, and in NUREG-1757(in the context of the requirements for releasingsites with restrictions on future site use).Staff will continue to provide advice andguidance on stakeholder involvement, but willnot initiate the development of a requirementto form an SSAB at every decommissioningsite.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION23. "I think it be very worthwhile to do someadditional work and put out some additionalguidance on the use of the RESRAD Buildmodel." LUXRESRAD-Build was developed by the ArgonneNational Laboratory (ANL). Both RESRAD andRESRAD-build were converted to probabilisticversions in 2000. At that time, NRC issuedNUREG/CR-6697, "Development ofProbabilistic RESRAD 6.0 and RESRAD-BUILD3.0 Computer Codes," December, 2000, andNUREG/CR-6692, "Probabilistic Modules forthe RESRAD and RESRAD-BUILD ComputerCodes, User Guide," November, 2000.The first document describes the developmentof the probabilistic codes and provides theequations, assumptions, default parametervalues, distributions, etc. The seconddocument provides application guidance (i.e.,how to make it run). In addition, NRC providestraining courses twice a year (through NMSSand the TDC), one at headquarters and one inone of the Regions. The Department of Energy(DOE) also provides training. There is aRESRAD web site that can also be consulted toprovide access to the guidance material anddirect questions to the Argonne staff.Currently, there are no commercial trainingproviders for the use of RESRAD andRESRAD-BUILD codes. However, licenseesand people in the private sector can, for aregistration fee, attend the three or four DOE and NRC sponsored and approved annualtraining classes.Staff does not intend to sponsor thedevelopment of additional guidance on theuse of RESRAD-Build at this time. However,through the current NRC Contract with ANLstaff plans to develop web-basedtutorial/training for individuals that cannotattend the annual DOE and NRC sponsoredtraining classes. Current plans are to haveANL develop this training after the otherhigher priority tasks for developing theRESRAD-OFFSITE code and themethodology for probabilistic analysis offuture land use scenarios for realisticallyconservative dose analysis are completed.

ISSUE/SOURCE(from transcript)DISCUSSIONRECOMMENDATION OR STAFF ACTION24. "Flexibility in the interpretation applicationof regulations and regulatory guidance, Iwould place very high, as well as what I termperformance-based decommissioning wherethe level of specificity required in thedecommissioning plan can be reduced toincrease the flexibility in the adapting thedecommissioning process to what youencounter as you perform thedecommissioning." LUX.As discussed above, staff has been and will continue to seek opportunities to exerciseflexibility in its interpretations of the Agency'srequirements, while ensuring that an adequatelevel of safety is maintained, as discussed inthe staff's recommendations from the analysisof LTR implementation issues.As new opportunities to exercise flexibility inthe decommissioning process are identified,staff will consider how to incorporate theminto decommissioning guidance inaccordance with the IDIP process.25. "[Regarding inspections to prevent futuredecommissioning problems and addressingspills at site as soon as possible.] That (a leakat Indian Point) was significant, very rapidfollow-up on that. Our history has shown thatwhen you have that kind of event happening,it's going to pay you huge dividends when youget into decommissioning to make sure you tiethat up very quickly." HAASSee #1, above.See #1, above.